Vote on Land Claims

Forum arguments is the correct answer because that is all it ever has been since this game started. Land claims have been around since it started, only difference is someone has now made a map out of it in BL. The fact that it limits new settlement is a weak argument because the way the game has been played in the past limited settlement anyway. People are just trying to make an issue out of it now to keep the current conflict going. And I say RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!! At least it is not farmville for some of us now.

Brandmeister wrote: Corwin, you might be surprised at how many forum dwellers will post only to express their complete distaste for posting.

or in some cases, for others posting.  ;)


Edited by Angrim - 29 Jun 2015 at 17:47

Thexion, I felt that framing the poll as support vs against land claims would have led immediately to unproductive propaganda.

Corwin, you might be surprised at how many forum dwellers will post only to express their complete distaste for posting.

Bobtron, to date I know of no rare minerals, plants, or animals that are exclusive to claimed areas. Everything available in the Broken Lands is also available in Elgea, and there are very few highly concentrated resources like black bears and Arterium.

I support land claims and I am against land claims would be better options. Those all are true in some sense and its matter of opinion is it bad or good. If you think activity and friction are good then settling problems are fine..

The following is my personal opinion and is not representative of Alizes' stance on land claims:

While land claims do restrict settlement options of incoming players, land is basically the same everywhere (with terraforming). The way I see it, the problem with land claims is not with the land itself, but with the natural resources that come along with it. Quite a few species of animals, and their drops, are only native to their respective biomes. Same goes for rare herbs and rare minerals. If an alliance claims parts of one of these 'unique' biomes they will take strategic control of the biome's resources. For example, Deathmongers[Death] have claimed 1/4 of Pawanallpa, restricting access to rare animal parts dropped by Giant Snakes, Pumas, Fire Salamanders, Elephants, Rhinoceros, Massive Scarab Beetles, .etc.

The effects of the control of these rare resources can be significant. Centrum prices may rise, as these land claimers capitalize on those resource. As new traders cannot settle near the rare resources anymore, they would be forced to rely on other players that settled in the biome before the land claim was established, or buy those rare resources at hugely inflated prices, or find a different source of those rare resources, or be forced to risk a multiday hunting expedition into the biome and hope that it does not get slaughtered, whether by roaming wild animals, or by other players.

True, the above paragraph may be a "slippery slope" fallacy. Yet we are only in the early days of land claiming. Who knows what could happen?

As land claims do not forbid harvesting (as of the writing of this post), as a solution, the devs could implement an multi-day expeditionary hunting system where armies accompanied with skinners could make several kills in a claimed area. But I do not see that happening in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, I believe that land claims will negatively affect settlement options, and subsequently, the resources near them.